The “Virtual Armistice”

Published:PravdaNo. 52, May 22 (9), 1917.

      Published according to the text inPravda.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 24,

      pages375-377.Translated:Isaacs BernardTranscription\Markup:B. BagginsandD. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      1999

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

NovayaZhiznfor May 7 publishes interviews with
      ministers of the “new” government. Prime Minister Lvov has
      declared that “the country must have its weighty say and send
      its army into battle”.

Thisis the sum and substance of the new government’s
      “programme”. An offensive, an offensive, an offensive!

Defendingthis imperialist programme, now accepted by the
      Chernovs and the Tseretelis, Minister Lvov in tones of deepest
      moral indignation fulminates against the “virtual armistice
      that has been established at the front”!

Letevery Russian worker, let every peasant give careful thought
      to this programme ofoffensive, to these violent
      ministerial diatribes against the “virtual armistice”.

Millionsof people have been killed and crippled in the
      war. Untold sufferings have fallen to the lot of the people,
      particularly the working masses, as a result of the war. The
      capitalists are making scandalously high profits out of the
      war. The soldiers are utterly worn out.

Whatis wrong with a virtual armistice? What is wrong with
      having the slaughter stopped? What is wrong with the soldiers
      getting at least a brief respite?

Weare told that an armistice has been established only on one
      front, and therefore there is a danger of a separate peace. But
      this argument does not hold water. Ifneitherthe
      Russian Government nor the Russian workers and peas antswanta separate peace with the German capitalists (our
      Party, as we know, throughPravdaand in the resolution
      passed at our
      Conference,[1]which spoke in the name of theParty as a whole,
      has repeatedly protested against such a peace)—if no one in
      Russia wants a separate peace with separate capitalists, how
      then, by what miracle, can such a peace come? Who can impose
      it?

Theobjection is clearly untenable. It is sheer invention, an
      attempt to throw dust in our eyes.

Further,why should a virtual armistice on one front imply the
      “danger” of a separate peace on that front,and not the
      danger of such an armistice spreading to all fronts?

Avirtual armistice is an unstable transitional state of
      affairs. This is incontrovertible. Transitional to what? It
      cannot lead to a separate peace so long as there isnomutual agreement between the two governments or two nations. But
      why could not such an armistice lead to a virtual truce onallfronts? Surely this is whatallnations
      agree with, despite all or most of their governments!

Fraternisationon one front can and should lead to
      fraternisation on all fronts. A virtual armistice on one front
      can and should lead to a virtual armistice on all fronts.

Thenations would thus gain a respite from the carnage. The
      revolutionary workers inallthe countries would raise
      their heads still higher; their influence would increase, and
      faith in the possibility and necessity of a workers’ revolution
      in the advanced capitalist countries would become
      strengthened.

Whatis wrong with such a transition? Why should we not help to
      bring it about as far as it is in our power to do so?

Wemay be told that a virtual armistice today on all fronts
      would help the German capitalists, who have snatched more loot
      than anybody else. This is not true. For one thing, the British
      capitalists have grabbed more (the German colonies in Africa,
      German islands in the Pacific, Mesopotamia, part of Syria, etc.)
      and, unlike the German capitalists, have lost nothing. Secondly,
      if the German capitalists had shown greater obstinacy than the
      British capitalists, the growth of the revolution in Germany
      would have only been accelerated. The revolution in Germany is
      obviously mounting. An offensive by the Russian troops would
      check this growth. The “virtual armistice” hastens the rise of
      this revolution.

Thirdly,what with growing hunger, ruin, and disorganisation,
      Germany is in desperate straits, being worse off than any other
      country, especially since the United States has entered the
      war. A “virtual armistice” would not removethisfundamental source of Germany’s weakness; on the contrary, it is
      likely to improve the position of the other countries (greater
      freedom for bringing up supplies) while worsening that of the
      German capitalists (who have nowhere to bring supplies up from
      and will have greater difficulty in hiding the truth from the
      people).

TheRussian people have two programmes to choose from. One is
      the programme of the capitalists, adopted by the Chernovs and
      Tseretelis. This is the programme of offensive, the programme
      for dragging out the imperialist war, dragging out the
      carnage.

Theother programme is that of the world’s revolutionary
      workers, advocated in Russia by our Party. This programme says:
      stimulate fraternisation (but do not permit the Germans to
      deceive the Russians); fraternise by means of proclamations;
      extend fraternisation and a virtual armistice to all fronts;
      help to spread these in every possible way, thereby hastening
      the proletarian revolution in all the countries, giving at least
      a temporary respite to the soldiers of all the belligerent
      countries; hasten in Russia the transfer of power to the Soviets
      of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies, and thereby
      hasten the conclusion of a really just, really universal peace
      in the interests of the working people, and not in the interests
      of the capitalists.

Ourgovernment, with the Chernovs and Tseretelis, the Narodniks
      and the Mensheviks, is for the first programme.

Themajority of the Russian nation and of all the nations within
      Russia (and outside Russia), i.e., the majority of the workers
      and poor peasants, undoubtedly stand for the second
      programme.

Thevictory ofthissecond programme is drawing nearer
      every day.

[1][PLACEHOLDER.]—Lenin